Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.

Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.

So Apple should distribute the content for free? Let's examine that shockingly ignorant statement for a moment: newspaper and magazine vendors get a cut of the cover price for stocking the item and selling it through their store. Apple get similar - where's the difference?

Frankly, the inability of people to apply a little critical thinking is depressing. I am also amazed when someone pontificates about what presently amounts to vapourware (Honeycomb/Xoom) and then claims that a paper specification is somehow an indication of a better product. Let's wait until we can put the iPad and Xoom side by side and we'll soon see which is the better product.

Users want magazines on ipad, magazine publishers want it, apple wants it. So what is the big problem with this? And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services? Apple's going to get HUGE re-occuring income from app subscriptions, why can't they relax their rates so they don't scare off the content providers? Seems really short sighted to me.

There is the issue. We have a bunch of people mouthing off because they presume the rate for content will be 30%. Eddy Cue pretty much gave it away when he said they would be providing more information on subscription services soon; one of the issues addressed will be the fee for delivering in-app content. I expect it to be 5% or less.

Isn't a lot of this about the security of the platform, though? I mean, isn't iOS a new jewel in the crown formerly occupied solely by the Mac OS? Casting a wider net, isn't a lof Apple's approach ultimately geared on the user experience?

In other words, one can grow to "trust" the iOS platform as a secure, stable environment for creating and selling apps and other content, without worrying that there's all sorts of backdoor shenanigans going on. This would suggest a broader plan, if you will, for what iOS should become, but it appears most folks have an idée fixe that this all about Apple's horrible intentions, closed this and that, etc.

Apple is a boutique experience, and that's not an insult. Its business plan is focused around creating an experience for its customers, and this very different from what Google does with Android, for example. I'm not suggesting one is better than the other, but I often think there's a "can't tell the forest from the trees" mentality at play.

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

The publisher of your printed content are free to provide you access to their digital content without using Apple's infrastructure.

As far as the 30% goes, I suspect Apple will only be collecting the payment processing fee plus a few percent for subscription content - in other words, likely less than 5% and don't forget that the publisher no longer has to pay for payment processing. I bet it amounts to the publisher paying about 3% more than they currently do.

Apple needs to remember that success can be very short lived. Although I am an avid Apple fan and have ben for 25 years I think that a class action suit against Apple sometimes redirects it in the correct direction. Anybody listening?

Sue based on what? That you don't like they terms?

Apple isn't even the biggest e-book vendor on the iPad let alone the broader e-book market.

No one is forcing anything on anyone. They can walk. They can pull their apps. They can go to Android.

The whining and moaning over this hyped-up Sony story is simply uninformed nonsense. Apple is asking no more of these folks than every developer with an app on the App Store with a paid app is subject to, and every piece of music, movie and TV show sold through iTunes is subject to. For publishers to be treated differently would invite a lot of potential problems for Apple. If Apple was being consistent and treated everyone the same way as these publishers are demandingApple would have to forego its 30% for everything. That is simply silly.

I disagree with your premise that Apple will charge 30% for everything in the App Store. My guess is that subscription content, at least, will carry a much smaller cut.

Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.

Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.

Frankly, you're absurd, and need to learn that you own your iPhone and Apple owns the App Store.

Apple needs to stop pissing people off and be consistent with their rules and not just change it or enforce, reinforce things whenever they feel like it or whenever they get around it.

Android is taking off because Apple allowed it to (not intentionally) by being inconsistent with rules, pissing people off with our way or the highway attitude.

Let's face it iOS devices are popular because of contents. If content providers start getting turned off by Apple's attitude and stop supporting iOS, then...

Apple need content providers as much as content providers need Apple. The difference that could trouble Apple is that they're not only game in town. Say all you want about Android but fact is it's all over. No I don't own an Android device but I would hate it if I have to own one because it'll be the only choice.

The bolded bit above explains why it is unlikely that Apple will be charging anywhere near what uninformed people are whining about. I believe that Apple will be quite content to collect the payment processing fee plus a few percent for in-ap purchases of subscription material.

Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.

Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.

How do you come up with Apple having a near monopoly when they are not even the number one e-book dealer on the iPad?

That is what we, as yet, dont know. Nobody working in the industry knows. Can we have two buy buttons with two different prices ( itself a UI monstrosity). I would say no because that would be pointless to Apple, as nobody would pay for the premium.

However, Apple has not clarified.

What we also don't know is if there will be a different revenue share for different types of products.

Apple has no overheads. I say that as someone who technically knows what is going on.

Please provide your credentials because I am not believing the above statement.

First, at a minimum, they have the cost of hosting the app. Secondly, if someone opts for in-app purchase (perhaps so they don't need to share their credit card information with another party), Apple pays for the payment processing. That is NOT "no overheads".

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.

I agree. But I also agree that it would be unfair for a publisher to "sell" a free app in the iStore which can't be used unless you subscribe to content which the publishers sell outside of the store and keep all the revenue.

But if a publisher feels they can market and sell content outside of the store for less than the 30% that Apple takes, I feel they should be allowed to do that.

So maybe rather than forcing the publishers to also sell the subscription in the store, maybe there has to be a minimum price for such apps in the store. Apple would make less, but I think the enforcement of the current rule is unfair at least insofar as a publisher is concerned. I have no problem with Apple enforcing this rule for other platform providers, such as Sony, the Nook and the Kindle. Why should they get a free ride?

I'm actually surprised by the negative reaction of publishers of having to pay Apple 30% because they pay traditional print distributors somewhat more and they pay software distributors (such as Ingram Micro-D in the U.S.) far more. But I did some consulting early on for a large publisher who was producing content for the iPad and they were absolutely enraged at having to pay Apple 30%. I was kind of shocked because if you consider that Apple absorbs the credit card clearance fees, it's always seemed to me like it was a pretty good deal. (Although, to look at it another way, in the opening week of a movie, theatres get to keep only 5-10% of the ticket price, although theaters in NY and L.A. get their "nut" covered.)

I think Apple can get away with this only until the deluge of other "pads" hit the market. They might be inferior to Apple's offerings and their stores might not be as good, but there's going to be a lot of them and publishers will do deals with them if they can keep a bigger cut.

No its not. Publishers can no more afford 30% of their margins to publish their content ( which in most cases they have to pay for) than Apple could afford to be on Windows if the iTunes transaction had to pay Microsoft 30%.

This becomes loss making very quickly. At the moment, no publisher will be on the app store if these rules apply at the 30%. Sony was banned for not using iTunes in-app purchasing, it refused to comply with the new rules because of the draconian cost. It wasnt banned outright ( as far as we know).

Amazon will pull in June, or March when the rule is enforced for everybody.

Of course I bet the 30% will drop and the people who argued that it was a good thing will forget they argued it was a good thing, just as they forget they argued that Apple wouldnt be doing what Sony said they were doing all of two days ago.

But if the 30% is not removed, or reduced to a tiny figure, not one thing - except the Daily and iBooks - will be published on the iPad.

Publishers do, in fact, afford more than 30% when they sell through B&M locations and they can probably afford 30% in digital distribution. The issue here is not the publisher but other retailers selling in the App Store - they cannot afford to hand their full cut to Apple.

You seem to have a hazy crystal ball. First, you say Amazon will pull out and then you go on to state the more likely option: Apple charges a reduced cut for certain types of products. But you knew that and just chose to sensationalize the issue instead.

maybe I am not reading this right - or someone already pointed this out - or the article is not entirely accurate in its wording - but it sounded to me that Apple's requirement is NOT that user MUST pay for content via in App purchase - but that if user's can get paid content outside of the App that works with the App then the same content must also be offered as an in App purchase.

Which to me sounds like it may actually increase the overall revenue to the publisher.

In other words - even if the App is free - and my subscription directly with the publisher gets me content for use with the App - that is still okay - and I can still renew my subscription directly with the publisher - but that App now must also offer an in App option - which, while splitting revenue with Apple - might open up a paid revenue stream from customers who might otherwise never have a traditional subscription. For example - maybe I want to get a subscription to the London Times - I am not even sure that would be an option with traditional subscription services - and how long would it take to get mailed to me? But if I were so inclined to read the London Times - then downloading a free App and using in App purchase to choose my subscription - or even issue by issue - might be something to consider.

Or better yet - offer a steeply discounted subscription option so that folks in America can get access to information not typically available from our multitude of media outlets. There are folks who think the average American is uneducated about the rest of the world - but I say that is largely due to the fact that what little info is readily available to us is drowned out by the tsunami of media that is offered (and as with a real tsunami the content is largely the same and the aftermath is typically a pile of garbage).

Isn't a lot of this about the security of the platform, though? I mean, isn't iOS a new jewel in the crown formerly occupied solely by the Mac OS? Casting a wider net, isn't a lof Apple's approach ultimately geared on the user experience?

In other words, one can grow to "trust" the iOS platform as a secure, stable environment for creating and selling apps and other content, without worrying that there's all sorts of backdoor shenanigans going on. This would suggest a broader plan, if you will, for what iOS should become, but it appears most folks have an idée fixe that this all about Apple's horrible intentions, closed this and that, etc.

This sums up why, for many, people would rather pay through iTunes rather than than handing their credit card information to each individual publisher. That Apple gets a small fee over the payment processing fees makes perfect sense - they are providing a trusted commerce zone.

The bolded bit above explains why it is unlikely that Apple will be charging anywhere near what uninformed people are whining about. I believe that Apple will be quite content to collect the payment processing fee plus a few percent for in-ap purchases of subscription material.

At the launch of The Daily today Murdoch said that the cost was 30% to Apple for the subscription model and he expected that to last for this year. So it will for everybody.

The "new rules" only insist on an in-app option if your app already has an out-of-app option. You make it sound like the latter option is removed.

What is unknown yet is whether the latter option is removed or not.

The fact that this is unknown is itself an example of Apple's arrogance. Most peple dont know. The App Store testers are not responding.

The cost for using Apple's credit card facilities is 30%. Can an app

1) have two buttons with differential pricing. With Apple in-app being higher.
2) have two buttons with the same pricing ( one to launch the external website).
3) Have one button with Apple's tax added. The user can find his own way to the website.

1) Makes no sense for Apple.
2) Is bad UI, and people would use the one which stayed in the App.
3) Will make the iPad uneconomic for most publishers.

Publishers do, in fact, afford more than 30% when they sell through B&M locations and they can probably afford 30% in digital distribution. The issue here is not the publisher but other retailers selling in the App Store - they cannot afford to hand their full cut to Apple.

You seem to have a hazy crystal ball. First, you say Amazon will pull out and then you go on to state the more likely option: Apple charges a reduced cut for certain types of products. But you knew that and just chose to sensationalize the issue instead.

I am generally dealing with people here who think this is a good thing. The 30%, I mean. I am arguing that Amazon will pull out at that cost.

You are being more level headed. However I just found out, as I posted, that The Daily has a 30% charge.

So Apple should distribute the content for free? Let's examine that shockingly ignorant statement for a moment: newspaper and magazine vendors get a cut of the cover price for stocking the item and selling it through their store. Apple get similar - where's the difference?

Frankly, the inability of people to apply a little critical thinking is depressing. I am also amazed when someone pontificates about what presently amounts to vapourware (Honeycomb/Xoom) and then claims that a paper specification is somehow an indication of a better product. Let's wait until we can put the iPad and Xoom side by side and we'll soon see which is the better product.

Apple is not distributing anything in in-App purchasing. Read the manual.

Money QuoteYou may choose one of the following ways to deliver digital item to users:
•\tProvide the content within your app binary and enable it when the user makes a
purchase.
•\tDownload the content from your servers for use by your app when the user makes a
purchase.

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.

Simple solution: Charge for the digital media and give customer the option to receive from hard copy. Apple's 30% cut is less the nailing costs for a lo of magazines. I have a number of $10 subscriptions (special offers). No way they can mail these $3 per year.

Also the mailing/delivery costs of a daily like WSJ is probably less than the 30% Apple cut.

I think all this hullabaloo is just the magazine people "not getting it" again. I have a lot of aging aunts, uncles & grandparents who are just happily using their iPad without any need to have the nephews and nieces on call for tech support. It's wonderful.

But I do notice they totally get hung up when it comes to purchasing newspapers and magazines. Then the questions start, and of course each separate magazine/newspaper needs a different set of logins/passwords etc. and now we're dealing with credit cards and a whole lot of other sticky personal issues. Not to mention the awkward waits for downloading wireless content, especially when "sync and go" is "standard operating procedure".

So I have to side on Apple on this one. One of the things that really makes the iPad work is the consistent USER EXPERIENCE of downloading and managing your media through iTunes. As long as Apple is just enforcing the OPTION/CHOICE to use iTunes for purchases and downloads I applaud them. That very nice user experience is a big part of what makes the iPad and Apple successful.

So while I personally am willing to do out-of-app purchases to save money on Amazon, there are a lot of people who are are more than willing to pay the extra money for the "easier" service of using iTunes. I don't see anyone losing in this scenario, it's a pure capitalist system working beautifully.

Please shut up, and stop being purposely dense and shrill. And stop the FUD.

Sony is welcome to offer content on my machine, and anywhere else they choose. If they offer it on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch via the App Store -- and if I choose to download it that way instead of going somewhere else to do so -- Apple's rules are that they must pay [insert whatever]%.

All that Apple is saying is that Sony must offer that option. Because it's the equivalent of someone putting up a display on my storefront for a product they are selling, and then saying, "go next door to buy it." That's just not cool.

All the venting on both sides is ridiculous. It's surprising very few of the commenters here really understand what this is about. Quoting a couple bright people below.

Yes, Apple wants to be compensated for setting things up and facilitating the virtually frictionless ecosystem that the app store has become. We can all argue about an appropriate rate for that privilege, but there is something else you guys seem to be missing. APPLE IS STICKING TO THEIR GUNS AND NOT ALLOWING PUBLISHERS TO FORCIBLY EXTRACT APPLE'S CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION.

The publishers have been pressing to get that data for a long time, and Apple (thankfully) is not allowing them to require users to give up that info. Good for them.

if some of you (cough *asdasd*) were even half rational you would take note that Apple is NOT, REPEAT NOT requiring publishers to take down their out-of-app store. They are only requiring that there is a way to also purchase in-iTunes. Why? In addition to the scenarios quoted below, consider this situation:

Publisher wants customer demographics and personal information (because it's valuable). Apple says "no" (good for them, that's my data to divulge or not). Publisher is clever and figures out that they can give away a minimal "reader app" on the iTunes store, taking advantage of the full iTunes/iPhone/iTouch ecosystem -- but the app has no content. To get the content, the customer must sign up directly with the publisher, giving them exactly what they wanted in the first place, higher margins and personal data.

Not only does this destroy the simplicity of a single account, it potentially forces users to give up their personal information to every single publisher of merit that wants to sell their content on iOS devices. I think this has as much to do with Apple's policy as lost revenue. If lost revenue were the only concern, they could push for only in-app purchasing, rather than allowing both.

Think carefully about this before replying with some knee-jerk response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penchanted

This sums up why, for many, people would rather pay through iTunes rather than than handing their credit card information to each individual publisher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeysbistro

I have a lot of aging aunts, uncles & grandparents who are just happily using their iPad without any need to have the nephews and nieces on call for tech support. It's wonderful.

But I do notice they totally get hung up when it comes to purchasing newspapers and magazines. Then the questions start, and of course each separate magazine/newspaper needs a different set of logins/passwords etc. and now we're dealing with credit cards and a whole lot of other sticky personal issues. Not to mention the awkward waits for downloading wireless content, when the "sync and go" method has become a "standard operating procedure".

So I have to side on Apple on this one. One of the things that really makes the iPad work is the consistent USER EXPERIENCE of downloading and managing your media through iTunes. As long as Apple is just enforcing the OPTION/CHOICE to use iTunes for purchases and downloads I applaud them. That very nice user experience is a big part of what makes the iPad and Apple successful.

So while I personally am willing to do out-of-app purchases to save money on Amazon, there are a lot of people who are are more than willing to pay the extra money for the "easier" service of using iTunes. I don't see anyone losing in this scenario, it's a pure capitalist system working beautifully.

Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.

Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?

If you watch any of the reviewers using the device, Honeycomb is a long way from ready to go, unless the Motorola hardware is just that terrible, I could go either way. It looks a little more responsive than the tab though, so that is good

In what way is Android getting better? Fragmentation increases by the day. Google should have sued Samsung for releasing the Galaxy with 2.2. Fortunately it will not get anywhere in the market, but it is a very bad sign for the state of Androidland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdasd

Seriously, any developer developing for iOS publishing, hoping to use their own mechanism has now stopped and will turn to Android.

And rightly and understandably so.

No they won't.. There is no (as in none) marketplace for Apps of any kind on Android. Until the disaster that is Android as an App platform is straightened out, no one is leaving iOS. The Sony story has been blown way out of proportion and this is just more of the same.

All the venting on both sides is ridiculous. It's surprising very few of the commenters here really understand what this is about. Quoting a couple bright people below.

Yes, Apple wants to be compensated for setting things up and facilitating the virtually frictionless ecosystem that the app store has become. We can all argue about an appropriate rate for that privilege, but there is something else you guys seem to be missing. APPLE IS STICKING TO THEIR GUNS AND NOT ALLOWING PUBLISHERS TO FORCIBLY EXTRACT APPLE'S CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION.

The publishers have been pressing to get that data for a long time, and Apple (thankfully) is not allowing them to require users to give up that info. Good for them.

if some of you (cough *asdasd*) were even half rational you would take note that Apple is NOT, REPEAT NOT requiring publishers to take down their out-of-app store. They are only requiring that there is a way to also purchase in-iTunes. Why? In addition to the scenarios quoted below, consider this situation:

Publisher wants customer demographics and personal information (because it's valuable). Apple says "no" (good for them, that's my data to divulge or not). Publisher is clever and figures out that they can give away a minimal "reader app" on the iTunes store, taking advantage of the full iTunes/iPhone/iTouch ecosystem -- but the app has no content. To get the content, the customer must sign up directly with the publisher, giving them exactly what they wanted in the first place, higher margins and personal data.

Not only does this destroy the simplicity of a single account, it potentially forces users to give up their personal information to every single publisher of merit that wants to sell their content on iOS devices. I think this has as much to do with Apple's policy as lost revenue. If lost revenue were the only concern, they could push for only in-app purchasing, rather than allowing both.

Think carefully about this before replying with some knee-jerk response.

Most of your post is condescending blather, and brings up a complete side issue.

Consumers are not stupid. They are not forced to do anything. If they choose to buy a book via Sony's website (because it is not available via the App Store), they are willingly giving up their personal data. If they don't wish to divulge their personal data, they won't buy it that way, and it simply means that neither Sony nor Apple will get that dollar. Apple does not need to big brother them into protecting them from themselves.

It is simply an option that Apple wants to necessarily offer to its customers within its ecosystem, and for the benefit that they are providing Sony for using their storefront to gain visibility, they are requiring Sony to pay a fee. (I agree with you that we can argue about what the appropriate fee should be -- maybe it's 15% or it's 30% or it's 45%, but we really have no way to judge).

The fact that this is unknown is itself an example of Apple's arrogance. Most peple dont know. The App Store testers are not responding.

Apple has been very explicit that they will allow out-of-app payments as long as there is also an in-app option.

Quote:

The cost for using Apple's credit card facilities is 30%. Can an app

1) have two buttons with differential pricing. With Apple in-app being higher.
2) have two buttons with the same pricing ( one to launch the external website).
3) Have one button with Apple's tax added. The user can find his own way to the website.

1) Makes no sense for Apple.
2) Is bad UI, and people would use the one which stayed in the App.
3) Will make the iPad uneconomic for most publishers.

Until I see the 30% corroborated, I am unable to comment on these various options.

Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.

Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.

So you think that they dont pay to distributors, and newsstands and stores sell magazines and papers for free. Think again.

Even if they're not technically forced, many consumers feel constantly pushed and badgered to go in directions they would prefer not to go. Keeping purchases simple and with one single account/merchant/store is desirable to many. Otherwise, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see an ugly situation manifesting itself over time. Don't think of yourself, but think of the non-techy or older generation (that's why I quoted mikeysbistro above). Hell, I don't consider myself part of that generation, but I guarantee that if publishers all fracture off behind their own paywalls, I will not be buying anything from any of them. Ever.

About the personal data aspect. I'm surprised you're poo-pooing it. This has been a huge, huge blocking issue between Apple and the publishers. From what I understand behind the scenes, it's perhaps been the biggest thing holding up negotiations for some time. Allowing publishers to force users to go behind separate paywalls is really against what Apple has been standing up for. It's not just that, but the sum of several pieces. Lost revenue, added consumer complexity, pushing to get personal data, it all adds up to a situation that I'm not surprised Apple will try to contain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

If they choose to buy a book via Sony's website (because it is not available via the App Store), they are willingly giving up their personal data. If they don't wish to divulge their personal data, they won't buy it that way, and it simply means that neither Sony nor Apple will get that dollar. Apple does not need to big brother them into protecting them from themselves.

It's not that simple, although I think part of it may actually be helping to protect other adjacent industries from shooting themselves in the foot. But it's also harming Apple and the ecosystem at large. Look at how Apple stood fast against the music publishers' demands. It was for the consumer benefit, and as such, it was ultimately beneficial to the publishers as well. They just didn't know it at the time.

Keeping things clean and simple is far more powerful than most people think.

A subscriber can't purchase digital content through a paper publication, because there would be no way of verifying that customer if they don't actually have an iTunes account. What's the paper going to do, give out coupons?

No, you get a password -- Hey, that's kind of like an iTunes account password. Huh. -- which is valid so long as you're paying for your subscription. I would be quite irritated at Apple if reading my local paper's reportage in whichever form I choose on a given day requires not just a call to the paper, but a second, online payment just so that Apple can get a cut of my newspaper subscription. That will register to users as simply greedy (because it is), not fair. Apparently, content providers may just have to create tablet-specific Web site designs and bypass the app process entirely.

They don't get 30% as some kind of "tribute," they get 30% because that's pretty much the cost of them hosting your app on their servers and them paying all the credit card fees, etc. etc.

This is where irresponsible "blog" journalism falls down. Fools read stupid comments in Engadget stories (or anywhere else), about Apple "taking their cut," and they just believe it.

How hard is this to understand? If you sell something in someones else's brick and mortar store you get the benefit of them managing the money, counting the sales, dealing with the credit card people etc. and save yourself the cost of renting your own store, paying for the heat and lights, etc. etc. It's only fair that the store should get paid for these things, and it's the same everywhere, no matter whether it's a virtual store or a regular old-fashioned one.

Business has operated this way since forever, why do all these fools think it's something new that only Apple is doing?

30% IS THE SAME COST OF DOING BUSINESS THAT ALMOST EVERY OTHER ORGANISATION WOULD TAKE FROM YOU.